The Conservative Reader

DJ Durant August 19th, 2008

We were channel surfing on Saturday night because the Olympic coverage was of the women’s marathon, which I liken to watching paint dry, when we happened upon Rick Warren’s interviews of the respective candidates.  The least I can say is that the contrasts were spectacular.  John McCain was the all-around winner, (unless he was being judged by Olympic judges, in which case he would have placed second due to some unusual tie-breaking formula!).

Senator McCain opened up the proverbial can of Whompem on Senator Obama in these areas:

• Clarity–McCain’s remarks were straightforward, transparent and to the point.  It’s why he also got to answer more questions.  His answers were focused, and his intent was clear.  Note to Obama–at no point in the next eight years do we, as a nation, want to have another debate over the definition of “is”.
• Decisiveness–Senator McCain knows where he stands on certain issues and there is no wiggle room.  Never mind the fact that I agree with him on the “major” issues, the nation needs and wants a leader that can make a decision and articulate it to us.  Note to President Bush–articulate and communicate in this sense mean the same thing.  It’s the major weakness of your administration.  Note to Obama–I still don’t know where you stand on anything, because I don’t believe you know where you stand.  It’s one thing to talk about concepts like “hope” and “change”, but as President, we want to know you stand for something bigger than yourself and your ego.  You need to prove it to us.
• Humor–Obama’s crack about Pastor Warren’s book sales was out of line.  Barack, in your wildest dreams your book would sell 25 million copies.  McCain was able to laugh at himself and people like that.
• Experience–Track record is becoming more and more important in this campaign.  McCain’s is extensive.  Obama, well, most of his national experience has been spent running for President.  The geo-political situation is shifting.  I want someone who’s been there, done that.  The country can ill afford a President who requires on-the-job training.
• Taxes–Need I say more?  The notion that Obama thinks $250,000 is a lot of money tells me that he is really out of touch with the majority of people in this country.  A quarter of a million dollars ain’t what it used to be.  It seems that Obama’s economic policy advisor is Karl Marx.

The list goes on and on.  We could talk about their contrasting views of the Supreme Court, their anecdotes about their lives, etc.  I still don’t know who Senator Obama is, and at this point in the campaign, the nation should have a pretty good idea.  Senator McCain, you impressed me Saturday night, and the nation, I feel, as well.

Tags: McCain, Obama, presidential campaign, Rick Warren

• 2008 Presidential Election , 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Barack Obama , John McCain , Leadership
• Comments(0)

Bithead May 9th, 2008

Ann Coulter says it well, here:

Well, it looks like it’s the end of the road for Hillary. Time for her to pack up her pantsuits and go back to - wherever it is she’s pretending to be living these days. Now we just have to get rid of the other two. Perhaps if I endorse Obama …

This week, Bill Clinton lost his second presidential election for a protege.

Ronald Reagan was so popular, he not only won a 49-state landslide re-election for himself, but he also won a symbolic third term for his boob of a vice president, George Herbert Walker Bush (who immediately blew it by breaking his own “no new taxes” pledge).

By contrast, in addition to not being able to get half the country to vote for him in two tries, Clinton’s connection to any other presidential candidate spells utter doom. Both his vice president and his wife have been defeated in elections they should have won, but lost because of their unfortunate association with him. The country has spoken. It wants to be rid of the Clintons.

There is certainly much in the way of history to back what she’s saying here.

Look, Hillary Clinton has higher negative ratings … in both parties…. than any other presidential candidate in recent memory. Given that we’re talking about such people as Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, and George McGovern, and other various nitwits and wannabes that roll off everyone’s tounge like so much drool, that’s really saying something. So how is it she managed even get this close to the nomination?

From where I sit, the largest question revolves around who it is that she’s running against. What we ended up with… Clinton and Obama, is not because they’re particularly good, it’s that the remainder are particularly BAD….. Think about all the various Democrats that came up in this cycle, that nobody wanted anything to do with. We are talking here about the largest collection of self implosions as has ever graced the headlines of the nation’s newspapers. To give you an idea of just how bad all those candidates were, let me just point out that she and Barack Obama got by all of them. For Obama’s part, he managed to do so, despite being linked to a screaming racist, and a large group of politically questionable individuals who worship the ground that Marx is under, and having what is arguably the shortest qualifications list for the job that this country has ever seen, inclduing that of Jimmy Carter.  Despite this distinctly anti-American grouping, he managed to make it to the final round, only to come very close indeed to losing to somebody who is only slightly more popular than used Spam snot. Such is the popularity of Barack Obama, and frankly, such is the quality of our candidates today.

All of the foregoing should not be read to imply that the Republicans are in a better shape at the moment. On the Republican side, we have John McCain. (OK, granted, that he was chosen from the party opposite.) The Democrats, apparently seeing the crop of presidential candidates that they had on their side of the aisle was the best reason to vote Republican, apparently decided to mitigate those circumstances somewhat by crossing the political aisle and voting in Republican primaries for John McCain. Interestingly, when Rush Limbaugh,and the aforementioned Ann Coulter, tried the same thing, the Democrats had a cow. (Of course, they later changed their minds thinking Cow flatulance would add to global warming.)

For all that McCain could be running as a Democrat or as an independent as easily as he has managed to rise to the top of the heap in the Republican party, he still ends up being the best choice from the Republican point of view. Unfortunately, in this particular cycle at the least, choosing a president ends up being a game of margins.

But here’s the thing; If McCain is only marginally better than Obama, and Obama only marginally better than the Clintons, what are we in for in the next four years? Ann says it herself:

Americans rank Bill Clinton with national misfortunes on the order of the Great Depression and the Vietnam War. (This, of course, is an overreaction: The Great Depression wasn’t that bad.)

So, in short, since Hillary Clinton was really running things back in the 90’s and not Bill, what we’re going to end up with is something that is only slightly better than the Vietnam war and the Great Depression, Gee… I know I feel a whole bunch better, don’t you?

And how did we on the Republican side get to this stage?

Recently, when John Hawkins wrote and asked me to provide him with a list of the 25 most influential people on the right, I could only come up with a dozen of them… barely what he asked us for. I was appalled  to find so few that I could place in such a list. I told him via mail:

I must say I’m a little frightened by what I have found in my examination of my personal list of influential people. That is to say, what I found was a lack of people to fill the list with. There are certainly a few more than I’ve given you here, who I would consider very influential. But not a great deal more. .

One other thing I pointed out to him was that none of the people who I would consider both influential and conservative, are current office holders. None. certainly, there are many ostensibly on the right who are influential. Certainly, there are many ostensibly on the right who are conservative. However, none are both. I think, for example, that it’s arguable that John McCain is influential. Whether or not he is a conservative, seems to me a totally different question. Amazingly, McCain ends up being more influential than do true conservatives. And for anybody with a conservative bone in their body that should be a large area of concern.

Newt Gingrich a few days ago, issued a patent for the Republicans in the Congress that they face an election Day disaster come fall.

“Either congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November,” Gingrich wrote on Tuesday in HumanEvents.com, a leading conservative voice.

it’s interesting; the Democrats have been screaming for some time about change, and certainly Barrack has been using a manta chant of ‘change’ to his own advantage in his campaign. However in all those circumstances, ‘change’ is not defined.

Apparently in the case of the Democrats, the only thing they’re concerned about is whether or not the same faces inhabit the same seats. The only change that Hillary Clinton offers is that she isn’t George Bush.  Similarly, that’s the only real change that Obama offers. And, I see, similarly, the only change that John McCain offers is that he has none of the first three. Yeah, that’ll sell.

The obvious conclusion to draw here is that the best thing that the Republicans could possibly do is to offer real change in the form of a real conservative, as opposed to a middle-of-the-road milquetoast like John McCain, or more liberalism, bordering on socialism such as Clinton, or outright socialism, such as Obama. Unfortunately, that decision has already been made for us in terms of John McCain, and perhaps now in terms of Obama… But we can save the Republican Party, and the nation as a whole, the complete and utter disaster that surely awaits us with any of the three presidential candidates, working in concert with a Democrat Congress, by offering the people real conservatism for a change. Imagine a Congress packed with real conservatives.

Here’s the secret to getting there;  Offering change, people, does not mean that we have to change to be like the people we’re running against. As a matter of fact, changing ourselves to be more like the people we’re running against is the change at all. We’ve had centrists and leftists out our ears. How about some real change? How about offering real conservatism, instead of just lip service? Anything else is simply more of the same. Frankly, the American people won’t stand for it. Are you listening, RNC?

Tags: Ann Coulter, Bill Clinton, Depression, George Herbert Walker Bush, George McGovern, Hillary Clinton, John Hawkins, John McCain, presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot, The Clintons, Vietnam, wannabes

• 2008 Congressional Election , 2008 Presidential Election , 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Ann Coulter , Barack Obama , Bill Clinton , BitsBlog , Democratic Party , Hillary Clinton , John McCain , Republican Party , Swamp Stompers
• Comments(0)

Art Smith April 27th, 2008

So, Hillary this week graciously offered to debate Barack mano a mano.  No moderator.

Set their own rules.  Ask each other questions and answer them.

Millions of people across the country would be THRILLED to have a debate without moderators.

But can we really recreate the pure raw power of the Santos-Vinick debate (from the final season of West Wing)?  Of course, that was a Democrat against a Republican.

And don’t even imagine it could be anything like Lincoln-Douglas.    I can’t imagine that level of genteel.

Although it sounds wonderful, we probably all know the problem here.  Clinton’s calling Obama out knowing full well that Obama isn’t going to bite.  Obama has nothing to offer if put into an open debate… his whole campaign is smoke and mirrors.  It’s a risky play, though, since if Obama plays along, the current sniping can become an all out war on national TV, something neither candidate should want at this point.

Democrats are completely disoriented… this year’s election has so much complexity and new twists that the traditional analysis of any information lacks credibility.  The bad news is that anything weird can happen in very little time and the Internet and Media are making that possible.  The good news is that candidates can analyze and react almost as quickly, and potential shut down any major voter reaction any number of ways, including disproving, discounting, or distracting attention from the events.  And most people don’t have the time or attention span to track everything that’s going on.  It’s amazing that people even notice some of the things that have come up.

Obama is right, however (for whatever reason has)… there’s been enough debates for the primary.  Let’s just get it done, have the all-out war at the Democratic Party National Convention, and make sure people can see how contentious the party has become.  The Convention will be well-watched, I’m sure, and the biggest benefactor should be John McCain.  We’ll see.

Tags: , Barack Obama, Debates, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Presidential Election, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Barack Obama , Democratic Party , Hillary Clinton
• Comments(0)

Art Smith April 25th, 2008

I tend to agree with just about everyone on the planet (Michelle Malkin, Bithead, Sean Hannity, et al) that has told John McCain, in fairly direct terms, that he’s a dunce for asking the North Carolina GOP to back off with the Obama ads featuring the Reverend Wright.  All this at about the same time that Wright is coming out to tell everyone how misunderstood both he and poor Barack are in the quagmire they’ve created.

It occurred to me today that perhaps John’s agenda is a little different than we think it is… we’ve already seen this happen with other media splashes (remember when Hucksterbee pulled some negative ads at the last minute, but showed them to the press so they could see what a great guy he was for pulling them?).

As I’m listening Hannity and the national news and other media outlets, it seems to me that creating this story has also created much more exposure and attention to the ads than would have occurred otherwise.  And all under the guise of trying to “do the right thing”.  I could be wrong, and I certainly prefer anyone who may become POTUS to be aggressive in seeking victory, but this could very well be a shrewd ploy on McCain’s part.  And regardless, it seems to be working very well.

Hat Tip to Bithead.

Tags: Barack Obama, Bithead, GOP, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, North Carolina, POTUS, Republican Party, Rev Write, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Barack Obama , John McCain , Mike Huckabee , Republican Party
• Comments(0)

Art Smith April 10th, 2008

Today we will examine Clinton’s plan of action for American workers. If you have not read Part 1, we suggest you do so.

This week, the Chicago Sun-Times published a story regarding a recent study by the Pew Research Center.  Part of the analysis of the research concluded:

… the majority of the middle class feel they either haven’t moved forward or have fallen backward in their lives in the last five years — the worst showing of short-term personal progress in nearly 50 years…

Then later in the article:

On the upside, nearly two-thirds say they have exceeded their parents’ standard of living.

The article goes on the cover the change in median income and reflects (without quite seeming to get it) on facts that demonstrate that the economy was perhaps running too hard for a number of years, driving people’s expectations, requirements for contentment, and debt-to-income ratio to unrealistically high levels.  We are somewhat convinced here that many people who are dissatisfied about their financial situation are where they are due to overextending themselves on credit and unnecessary capital expenses… again, fueling the economy, but perhaps harder than was appropriate.

Statistics

Before we move on to Hillary’s solutions, one thing I think is worth pointing out.  We have not seen a good statistical analysis of middle class income data (if you have, please let me know!).  The only information we have seen thus far is graphs of the median, which is nothing more than the data point in the middle of all the data… if you had data points of 5, 7, 12, 14 and 14, the median would be 12, the mean would be 10.4 (this is the common definition of “average”), and the mode would be 14.  It would be significantly more valuable to see the mean and the standard deviation, which would give us a better sense of where most people’s incomes really are.  There may be a much different story to tell if we could see more meaningful information.

This is where Hillary starts explaining her plans for Rebuilding The Road To The Middle Class.

Hillary’s Solutions

First point: “Harness the power of innovation to create high wage jobs of the 21st Century“. By itself, this line sounds great but says nothing concrete. “Innovation” is the key word here, and is a vague term that speaks to the hope that someone will come up with an idea.

Hillary details this item out by calling out alternative energy and broadband (presumably she means easy access to the Internet). She also identifies creative partnerships to help re-energize the manufacturing base and new technologies and life-saving medicines. Then she states that she would reverse the current administrative bans on embryonic stem-cell research and cloning (although only vaguely… she does not mention them by name).

Finally she goes on to detail out a plan to build a Strategic Energy Fund to finance an energy research agency.

Most of this section seems to rely upon the hope that some yet-to-be-identified people will come up with ideas, discover solutions, or create new synergies to somehow solve our ills… as if none of this were already happening. As best as we can tell, this is not much more than pie-in-the-sky and creates an opportunity to spend money, without solving anything. Interestingly enough, the idea of achieving “new technologies” and “life-saving medicines” are for the sake of creating jobs, rather than fulfilling any specific need. It seems rather wasteful to create new “life-saving medicines” if they aren’t really needed.  It makes more sense to allow the real needs to drive the innovations.

Furthermore, the idea that broadband Internet access provided to more communities is going to somehow create opportunities for people where these services are not as robust makes sense only if you believe everyone can make money from home using the Internet.  The last time I checked, that was a bunch of smoke and mirrors.  It’s true that one can make money on the Internet, but it takes more than just internet access to make money.  If it were that easy, everyone would be successful at it, but they’re not.  “Work From Home”, “Earn Money On Your Computer”… the business model for many of these ventures is to 1) Get a computer and Internet Access 2) Open a Paypal Account 3) Send out emails to thousands of people inviting them to “Work From Home” 4) Charge them for these very instructions.  Now, Hillary wants to con us with the same scam.

Although financing alternative energy research is already a mainstay of federal spending, we agree this is an area that can tolerate some growth. However, the best way to spend this kind of money at this time appears to be with tax incentives. And providing the incentives to more than just oil companies, but any engineering or related energy company should have a crack at this. Within the boundaries of demonstrating a legitimate effort to achieve realistic results.

The recommended research agency seems like a typical government ploy to create a new kingdom. And subsidizing alternative energy solutions should be done carefully… if done to cover the market challenges of more costly solutions like E85, one will wonder if we’ve actually succeeded since the money to subsidize the solutions has to come from somewhere (that would be the taxpayers).

Point two: “Empower our workers and ensure that all Americans contribute their fair share“. This point is about Unions, jobless training, and cost-shifting.

Hillary wants to ensure that Unions are strong. Unions, however, are losing their value in America (see previous article on this topic). The two key areas that Clinton mentions in referencing the “Employee Free Choice Act” are fair wages and safe working conditions.

Two factors now exist that help ensure workers are paid fairly: market forces and federal law. Most reputable companies can see the value of paying their employees a fair wage, and do so. We have not seen any studies providing salary comparisons between union and non-union organizations, but based on anecdotal evidence, it seems Unions do not bring much value in this area. And they cost employees money (dues).  And as the time of Unions begins to wane due to their lack of real value, membership declines and the need to force non-Union members to subsidize the supposed benefits they receive indirectly becomes the new battle cry to continue financing the fat cats.

Worker safety should be managed under the domain of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA should be handling any safety concerns.

Hillary also promotes additional bureaucracy in the form of a “trade enforcement officer” and doubling the size of the US Trade Representative enforcement unit. The purpose is to have more effective enforcement of our trade agreements. Frankly, we need to review and renegotiate some of our agreements. the Clinton administration produced agreements that are key to the loss of jobs to Mexico and elsewhere in the world.

Hillary also promotes overhauling the Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The changes she recommends here are sweeping and costly. Most of the benefits appear to be nice but not absolutely necessary. If we can work on preventative measures to stay out of trade related job loss and focus on keeping jobs in the US, this might not be so necessary. The recommendations that Clinton makes here should be stripped down to minimum. The bottom line is, there is not much money available, and the Senator has already been critical of the national debt.

Point three: “Restore fairness to the tax system“. We totally agree with this statement, but we know that Clinton is not talking about the Fair Tax. Ultimately, we see fairness in the tax system coming about when spending is dramatically cut  and the burdensome complexities of the existing tax code are eliminated. Hillary, however, is looking at rebuilding the existing progressive tax percentages to ensure a larger portion of money earned by the “rich” is taken in as revenue.  See DJ’s posting earlier this week.

So far, it seems that Clinton’s answer to everything is to spend more money. So where does the money come from???

And keep in mind, any taxes assessed to corporations will simply become a hidden expense to us since any additional tax expenses simply get passed on to customers. We see the taxes as increases in product prices.

In Part 3, we will examine Clinton’s other plans to improve the lives of the Middle Class.

Tags: College Tuition, Economic Blueprint for Rebuilding the Middle Class, Hillary Clinton, Housing, Inflation, POTUS Election 2008, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election , 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Economy , Hillary Clinton , Housing , Middle Class
• Comments(0)

Art Smith April 7th, 2008

Today we start our review of the 3 remaining candidates for President. The structure of this series will be based on the candidates’ own stated positions on issues from their web sites.

We’ll start with one of the issues on Hillary Clinton’s site: Strengthening The Middle Class.

Hillary’s site essentially abbreviates the more substantive plan called the Economic Blueprint for Rebuilding the Middle Class. Amazingly enough, the abbreviated content includes 5 specific points from the “Blueprint”, 2 of which lack any substance at all, two of which make me squirm, and 1 which makes sense (balanced budgeting rules).

Let us examine the “Blueprint”.

Today we will start with the challenges Hillary sees for the American Middle Class.

The Challenges

Hillary starts by enumerating the concerns of Americans today with unattributed statistics that paint n extremely bleak picture… a picture intended (especially with references to “1929″) that gives the impression that we are already in the midst of the Second Great Depression.

Point one: “Income inequality is rising“. Aside from the obvious sense of fairness driven out by this observation, so what? If the wealthy are becoming wealthier, that should be a sign of continued success in the marketplace, meaning job growth should be maintained in the long run. It is difficult to see why this is a “challenge”.  A concern here should be the first two words: “Income inequality”. These are the words of Socialism, although one would be negligent to accuse Clinton of being a Socialist. To her goes the benefit of the doubt, but this is the direction she will tend to steer things, while perhaps for good reasons, to our demise. For our government to continue driving toward a sense of income equality will result in oppressive taxation and the beginning of mediocrity.

Point two: “It is increasingly hard for middle class families to make ends meet.” Some of the statistics in this section could be troublesome. But are they? Middle class income is down $1000 since 2001. If you look at middle class median income, it climbed steadily through a large part of the 90’s, and then dropped in 2001 to 2004, and has steadily started climbing again. The total range from peak to valley is about $1500. There are likely a number of factors, including 9/11 and the overpricing of tech resources in the late 90’s to support Y2K and the burgeoning of new technologies (particularly in networking and Windows Servers). Those costs have normalized, and over the past few years the middle class median income has been climbing again as it was before. College tuitions are up 40%. College tuition inflation has been relatively stable at twice the rate of general inflation (as it has been for decades). The rate over the same period of Bill Clinton’s presidency as 38%. Health care premiums have almost doubled. Health care premiums have risen at a dramatic rate (above income and inflation rates) since 1999. This is a legitimate area of concern, and it seems as if the issue is how to actually lower health care costs. Gas prices have doubled. Yes they have, and along with Health Care Premiums, deserves attention.

A few points here: 1) It’s not entirely clear how the income numbers are really derived, and it is possible there are other ways to interpret the data. Nonetheless, a drop of 3% in median income over a few years seems non-critical at this point and does not attend to the more important question of whether families are truly unable to support themselves on their current income. 2) College tuition is not behaving any differently than it always has, so the point is moot. 3) Some costs have gone up that there is potential for reducing… seems like a good area of focus.

Point three: “The impact of globalization.” Too many jobs are going outside the US. We need a good assessment of why this has happened. A lot of things have been done to help the economies and education of foreign countries, including providing key technologies. Clinton specifically references jobs going to China… interesting since Bill provided technologies to China that have probably contributed to the success of China in the technology related industries. However, she does make a valid case for understanding and perhaps developing appropriate protections for American service industry jobs.

Point four: “The Bush administration’s lack of fiscal discipline is burdening today’s middle class and future generations.” It does not make sense to attack Bush on this for two reasons: 1) Best to focus on the actual challenge, which in this case would be the national debt (politics!) 2) fiscal discipline should first and foremost be the responsibility of Congress. According to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It seems as if Clinton should take some responsibility for this herself. Regardless, we have a very real issue with the national debt and deficit. We do need to resolve this.

Point five: “Weakness in the housing market is hurting families.” DJ said it best: “The real issue here is greed, plain and simple.” It may sound uncaring, but too many people got greedy and bought more house than they could afford. They took loans at lower rates by using ARMs. Frankly, the holders of the mortgages themselves are struggling a lot more than the homeowners. They end up with a house that’s not worth the remaining principal on the mortgage, and perhaps no one to buy the property. They bear the burden of the administrative costs of resolving the situations, and in many cases will give up income they have rightfully earned to help the homeowner get into a loan they can manage. Many of these homeowners ought to have been able to simply get a new loan, yes at a higher rate but if they’ve had the mortgage for more than a year or so, the payment on the new loan would probably be the same or less than the old one. Unless they’re already upside down because they had little equity in the first place. Regardless, if they’ve bought more than they could afford, or carelessly and greedily spent their equity, they need to buy a smaller home or rent until they can afford what they want. That’s how life works.

In Part 2, we will examine Clinton’s plan of action for American workers. In Part 3, we will examine Clinton’s other plans to improve the lives of the Middle Class.

Tags: College Tuition, Economic Blueprint for Rebuilding the Middle Class, Hillary Clinton, Housing, Inflation, POTUS Election 2008, The Conservative Reader

• 2008 Presidential Election , 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Economy , Hillary Clinton , Housing , Middle Class
• Comments(0)

Art Smith April 5th, 2008

I hate to say this, but I’m not all that worked up about any of Hillary Clinton’s (or any other politician’s) hypocrisy.  Hypocrisy is unbecoming, and it may even raise some question of character (although I’m not sure how exactly), but it’s really empty criticism.  On it’s own, it might make a good argument for discussing the topic that the hypocrisy is focused on, but as a means of fomenting disfavor, I prefer to find more substantive methods.

Bill and Hillary make a lot of money.  Good for them.  I do not begrudge them a dime (as long as they are paying their taxes properly).  How much more hypocritical are we in the conservative camp, who generally believe that all should be able to earn as much as their work is valued, who believe all should be able to keep all of their money with the government getting no more than its fair share, who believe that those who earn more should not be looked down upon nor up to simply because of their income, that would condemn the Clintons for earning what they have.  We should rather celebrate the fact that the Clintons and other free Americans are able to succeed and enjoy the riches of their success unencumbered by a neo-socialist agenda bent on taking all but the amount needed to survive each day and squander the funds taken on those that chose to underachieve.

And Hillary is likely to suffer some amount of disfavor from those on the left that somehow think she and Bill should have given more to charity (they gave less than 10% over the last several years) or more to help build the pride of some Americans (I don’t know how, but Michelle Obama could maybe help with that one), or just done a few more speeches for free, but it is their right to earn and spend their money as they see fit, and we should not be judges of that.  Although we can probably all think of ways that we think the Clintons could positively impress us with acts of charity or otherwise, let’s allow the Democrats to do that and let’s stay on the high road.

Let’s talk about things that really reflect on Hillary’s ability to lead this country.  Let’s stick to things that really matter instead of taking our attention off of:

Lying

Cheating

Lack of Foreign Policy Skills (Hillary’s words… you read them and decide)

Lack of Integrity

Lack of Economic Skills

Lack of Language Skills

Strong Socialist Leanings

Let’s focus on issues, and Hillary and Barack’s positions and take them apart one by one… let’s give credit where it’s due (there won’t be much), but let’s show point by point where the agenda breaks down… we all know it’s mostly due to short-term thinking, but make the case.

So, starting Monday, we’ll begin looking at each policy/issue point on each Candidate’s agenda using content from their web sites along with any other information we may have access to.  Let’s see where it takes us.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Income, Integrity, Issues

• 2008 Presidential Election , 2008 Presidential Election Issues Analysis , Hillary Clinton
• Comments(1)